A Tale of Two Cities (1917)

User Rating:

6.9/10   

Director:

Frank Lloyd

Writers:

Charles Dickens (novel)
Frank Lloyd (scenario)

Release Date:

11 March 1917 (USA)

Genre:

Drama

Plot:

At the outbreak of the French Revolution, Charles Darnay goes to Paris to rescue an imprisoned former family servant...

Plot Keywords:

French Revolution | Historical | Dickens | Based On Novel

Cast

William Farnum	...	Charles Darnay / Sydney Carton
Jewel Carmen	...	Lucie Manette
Charles Clary	...	Marquis St.Evenmonde
Herschel Mayall	...	Jacques Defarge
Rosita Marstini	...	Madame Therese Defarge
Josef Swickard	...	Dr. Alexandre Manette
Ralph Lewis	...	Roger Cly
William Clifford	...	Gabelle
Marc Robbins	...	Jarvis Lorry
Olive White	...	Miss Pross
Willard Louis	...	Mr. CJ Stryver
Harry De Vere	...	Gaspard
Florence Vidor	...	Mimi
rest of cast listed alphabetically:
James Morrison	...	Undetermined Role

Runtime:

70 min

Country:

USA

Color:

Black and White

Aspect Ratio:

1.33 : 1

Sound Mix:

Silent

Company:

Fox Film Corporation

Trivia:

Film debut of James Morrison.

Movie Connections:

Featured in Chris & Don. A Love Story (2007)

surprisingly good

Not a great film but I was surprised at how much I enjoyed it. Farnum is excellent in a double role, and Jewel Carmen is sympathetic as Miss Manette. The film owes a lot to D. W. Griffith. The editing style, the plot development, the epic scope and the direction are all, strictly David Wark. However, give the director (Frank Lloyd) credit; he knew a good thing when he saw it, and even if he did copy Griffith, at least he did it well. Frank Lloyd eventually became a very capable director with his own style. Like Griffith he had a way of saying a lot in a few frames and doing it in a satisfying way. He moves things right along and so is able to keep the interest of even a modern viewer. If you are a film student, you could learn a lot about artistic economy from watching this film. However, most of us will just be happy that the director is able to keep our interest, and not waste our time with overly long scenes. Only in the very last couple of minutes does it drag slightly. But I suspect that what we see as dragging today, would have been considered art in 1917. There is also a creative use of double exposures and other effects that give the film a bit of visual excitement.

To the average intelligent viewer - don't go too far out of your way, but if you end up seeing it, it will keep your interest better than many modern films and you will be entertained.